One would also have to figure that many technology markets become saturated. Millions of people own PCs. At least as many millions of people own compact cameras, if not considerably more. Billions of people own cell phones with cameras. Unless someone finds massive new groups of consumers somewhere, I suspect a lot of existing markets will begin to slow down until something revolutionary is discovered or refined and brought to market (maybe something like lightfield photography).

That is exactly it. The first digital cameras we all bought were not up to the tasks we wanted to put them to. Now we are in a position where the technology is good enough for the use cases most of us have. - For instance, for most of portrait work, you don't need anything better than a 5DII - unless you need output to a very large format, or you need a lot of dynamic range (as two examples where you might need something better). For the most part, most DSLRs are now outperforming 35mm SLRs, and have eaten a good part of medium format's lunch.

The same applies to compact cameras - their output is better than any film compact ever produced, and more than good enough for most consumers. Heck - phones are producing better photos man film compacts could!

For the most part, digital photography technology is "good enough" and the main reason to upgrade is now for many people only the need to replace a broken, lost or stolen item.

As you rightly point out - camera manufacturers need something disruptive to drive the market back to what it was for the first 10 to 12 years of this century.

Well no wonder, this time last year the 5DIII was still new and hot on the market. What do we have now? Cut price EOS M? Still waiting for 70D, no sign of 7DII and some speculation about a 80MP camera. Obviously their digital camera sales are lower this quarter!

I was not surprised at all due to economic factors and making the "prosumers" wait for them to take forever in rolling out a new product.

Smart phones are saturating the market. People don't care about image quality - 40+MP smart phone. What type of IQ will you get? Wait a few years, cameras will make a come back, especially when someone marries a smart phone with a quality P&S.

Smart phones are saturating the market. People don't care about image quality - 40+MP smart phone. What type of IQ will you get?

When it is downsampled to a quarter of that, it actually gets you quite a lot. In Pro photography mode, the Lumia 1020 allows you to zoom and crop as well, and while it is not quite on par with APS-C or FF DSLR IQ, neither is it bad.

Wait a few years, cameras will make a come back, especially when someone marries a smart phone with a quality P&S.

From what I've been reading the last few months, the increase in phones with decent cameras has actually spurred an increase in demand for DSLR and high end mirrorless cameras in established markets. Analysts suspect that there is some kind of IQ conversion factor, where people figure out they enjoy photography by using their phones, and want more.

I think the Lumia is getting pretty close to a marriage between a P&S and a Smart Phone. It has Xenon flash, a six-element Zeiss lens with optical image stabilization, a high resolution sensor that produces some very good IQ for what it is (best in the business as far as smart phone cameras go, manufactured with the latest technology that...as far as the technology itself goes, far outpaces anything Canon produces as of yet), as well as a host of photography related accessories and professional grade photography software (i.e. total control of all the same exposure factors as you can on a DSLR or Mirrorless).

In the past when Canon coughed, it was a sign that the whole industry had a cold. You will probably see similar results from the others, particularly Sony whose entire consumer electronics business seems to be in the financial “hurt locker” anyway.

actually Sony is almost half bankrupted company and I think it will go bankrupt in a few years unless it decides to quit the A mount.

I am really hoping Sony to wake up soon and concentrate all its imaging R and D money in to the E mount before it's too late, the RX-1 is a temporal hit for them but it won't make any money in the long run.Full frame NEX is the only thing give them some meaningful success in this game.

Sony is hurting due to their TV and phone sales. Cameras are doing well for them, as are sales of sensors.

In the past when Canon coughed, it was a sign that the whole industry had a cold. You will probably see similar results from the others, particularly Sony whose entire consumer electronics business seems to be in the financial “hurt locker” anyway.

actually Sony is almost half bankrupted company and I think it will go bankrupt in a few years unless it decides to quit the A mount.

I am really hoping Sony to wake up soon and concentrate all its imaging R and D money in to the E mount before it's too late, the RX-1 is a temporal hit for them but it won't make any money in the long run.Full frame NEX is the only thing give them some meaningful success in this game.

Sony is hurting due to their TV and phone sales. Cameras are doing well for them, as are sales of sensors.

Is this information available in the public domain? I remember seeing the Sony annual report combining the imaging and a number of other electronic products into a single segment.

In the past when Canon coughed, it was a sign that the whole industry had a cold. You will probably see similar results from the others, particularly Sony whose entire consumer electronics business seems to be in the financial “hurt locker” anyway.

actually Sony is almost half bankrupted company and I think it will go bankrupt in a few years unless it decides to quit the A mount.

I am really hoping Sony to wake up soon and concentrate all its imaging R and D money in to the E mount before it's too late, the RX-1 is a temporal hit for them but it won't make any money in the long run.Full frame NEX is the only thing give them some meaningful success in this game.

Sony is hurting due to their TV and phone sales. Cameras are doing well for them, as are sales of sensors.

Is this information available in the public domain? I remember seeing the Sony annual report combining the imaging and a number of other electronic products into a single segment.

Ditto...last I read, Sony's "electronics" division (which includes IC manufacture and cameras) was losing ~8-9 billion a year, and that they were primarily making money selling insurance policies...

I'd love to know what these are, just so I might avoid running into them.I don't have to rely on my d800/e to make a living, I like using them because they get me the shot I want with a more maleable raw file than anything else. So I'm very curious about what you find to be, "real life usability issues." IMO, they're the least-compromised and most affordable high quality imaging machine available for my needs.

..moved away from Nikon because of its terrible QC and some hugely hurting design flaws in the D600 and D800 bodies.

I think all mfrs have had their share of QC issues, perhaps Nikon a bit more visibly so lately, but I've had nothing worse than one oil droplet show up on a d800's sensor and the d5100's do regularly vex me with misaligned mirrors that cause tilted shots compared to the viewfinder yet some people will say that's nitpicking. I don't like the d600's merely because of how they (don't) fit my hand.I've not had any AF or other issues in my early model d800s; they work so well they make me smile when I use them.

I'd love to know what these are, just so I might avoid running into them.I don't have to rely on my d800/e to make a living, I like using them because they get me the shot I want with a more maleable raw file than anything else. So I'm very curious about what you find to be, "real life usability issues." IMO, they're the least-compromised and most affordable high quality imaging machine available for my needs.

..moved away from Nikon because of its terrible QC and some hugely hurting design flaws in the D600 and D800 bodies.

I think all mfrs have had their share of QC issues, perhaps Nikon a bit more visibly so lately, but I've had nothing worse than one oil droplet show up on a d800's sensor and the d5100's do regularly vex me with misaligned mirrors that cause tilted shots compared to the viewfinder yet some people will say that's nitpicking. I don't like the d600's merely because of how they (don't) fit my hand.I've not had any AF or other issues in my early model d800s; they work so well they make me smile when I use them.

It is true that all manufacturers have their design and QC issues. The 1D III had more than its fair share of AF issues, and even after several firmware updates, they persisted. Early on, it was difficult to get Canon to recognize the issue, too...but once they did, their support for customers experiencing the issues was excellent.

It seems even after Nikon finally and begrudgingly acknowledged the issues with the D800 and D600, they still made their customers jump through hoop after hoop after hoop to get things fixed. From all the things I read, it was either that Nikon did not really want to admit they had issues, or maybe it was more along the lines of the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing (internal communication problems?) Either way, it seems the customer support issue with Nikon in recent years has been terrible.

I've had to work with Canon on a few things over the last four years, and every single incident was a smooth, easy, simple experience, with rapid turnaround. That seems to be the general consensus as well...that Canon support is superb (they keep winning awards for it year after year.) Making a brand choice comes down to more than hardware offerings, hardware quality, etc.

..Making a brand choice comes down to more than hardware offerings, hardware quality, etc.

While that's true I don't make a purchasing choice based primarily on how something is likely to fail and be repaired.I need results more than some sense of long term security so I can afford to choose accordingly.

I've also had good experiences with Canon when it comes to service and support. (Tho they asked me to keep quiet when I found a significant bug in their DPP software)

I've also had good experience with Nikon service and support, altho they had to finally acknowledge that they could not fix the d5100's tilt issue. (module replacement only, no fine adjustment possible)

I'm still interested in what sort of real-world limitations the D800 may have that some people have hinted at but not substantiated. I haven't found any in my use of them. There was only a learning curve of getting used to how they do some things differently.

..Making a brand choice comes down to more than hardware offerings, hardware quality, etc.

While that's true I don't make a purchasing choice based primarily on how something is likely to fail and be repaired.I need results more than some sense of long term security so I can afford to choose accordingly.

Hmm, interesting that you would say you need results. What happens when your camera DOES stop functioning, and results are impossible?

It may not be the most important thing to you specifically, but I think in general, not just when it comes to cameras but when it comes to most things, people prefer a company that will not only stand by their product, but step up and fix issues, without introducing a lot of hassle, when something does happen. Canon won the professionals heart in the 80's with their AF. For a long time, they were the best AF game in town. Today, Nikon has definitely caught up, and at times surpassed Canon's AF performance. They do offer better IQ in a few models as well. But professionals still overwhelmingly shoot Canon. I can't imagine that the quality, responsiveness, and low hassle of their support doesn't play any role at all.

I'm still interested in what sort of real-world limitations the D800 may have that some people have hinted at but not substantiated. I haven't found any in my use of them. There was only a learning curve of getting used to how they do some things differently.

I wouldn't haul a D800 out for anything action related. It is probably capable, barely. At 4fps, it just wouldn't be fast enough to really zero in on the perfect moment in an action sequence. Hell, I consider the 6fps of the 5D III to be borderline good enough for my BIF work. There is also the situations in which you need a deep buffer for continuous shooting. Canon excels here...when you hit the buffer limit, you can still keep clicking away, albeit at a lower rate, as the buffer clears. The D800? It comes to a crushing halt, forcing you to pause while the buffer is cleared. That again puts it at a pretty severe disadvantage when it comes to shooting any kind of continuous action. The megapixel count, while a boon for some types of photography, results in huge file sizes...which can also be a limitation if you need to work through a lot of images in post (although that is not something relegated to just the D800...a high MP camera from Canon will have the same issue.)

If I had to pick a general purpose camera, and had to choose between the 5D III and D800, I'd pick the 5D III. If I had to pick a camera for landscapes, at the moment, the D800 wins hands down in a heartbeat. I could also use the D800 for macro work, if only I could slap on the MP-E 65mm 1-5x Zoom Macro. ;P

yes, it's a little slow on fps but so's a 5d2. most of my subject matter only moves when the wind blows. I kept a 7d for speed until I dumped it last year. Waiting to see what a 7d2 will be like, or even the 70d. 40d, 60d, and some old rebels still back some Canon glass for now but rarely get used.For everything else, d800/5100 and k52s work just fine and I no longer have to deal with dreaded pattern noise.

I DO miss the 7d when trying for BIF shots, especially in low light.

But that's the thing, I select my gear for specific kinds of shooting.If I wanted an all-round, general-purpose body I'd have to make compromises...I don't like compromises.

File sizes are not an issue either. I capture a small jpg with each raw, use those for a quick catalog to review shots to select for post.Most post software will also allow you to batch-process so if you have at least a reasonably capable computer, you can continue to edit while running a batch.

So, other than limited fps, but not significantly different from previous canon FF, I've not heard of any significant impediments to using a d800 in the real world.

The problem with photo enthusiasts analyzing these numbers is that they bring their narrow views about their hobby to the issue.

The reason that compact camera sales have fallen is that phones are the camera of choice for the enormous market that is the casual user.They do not care about any of the issues that the hobbyist cares about. They want the photo to "come out". And they do on even the most rudimentary phones. The phone is their display and their album. More than that might be nice but not worth spending anything for. Their stuff already looks good on FB so why bother?

The real concern is the evolution of the higher end products that enthusiasts and pros DO buy. Canon has already shown us their pro-active strategy on this front in the form of the higher prices on new lenses and other accessories. They are already pricing for the low volume market they see developing.

That is why their profits are not dropping precipitously while sales of small cameras are.